Canadian evangelical voting intention pattern survey at Bene Diction Blogs On

Canadian evangelical voting intention pattern survey

From Canadian Christianity, on an Evangelical Fellowship of Canada paper:

Further, it suggested, “the growing evangelical support for the Conservatives had more to do with the Conservative’ offering a viable alternative to the Liberals, whom many perceived as corrupt and hostile, than with a hope for potential policy gains.”

The EFC research also suggests that support for the Liberals may have fallen off rapidly because of the party’s electoral tactics, rather than any particular policy change.

The paper cites six specific actions:

•Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella’s 2000 mocking of the creationist beliefs of then Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day, an evangelical Christian. Kinsella said, among other things: “I just want to remind Mr. Day that The Flintstones was not a documentary.”
•After supporting traditional marriage in 2002, parliamentary Liberals opted to press for a redefinition of marriage as being “between two persons” rather than “between a man and a woman.”
•Before the 2004 election, the Liberals commissioned a ‘push poll’ that asked Ontarians: “Would you be more or less likely to vote for the Conservatives if you knew they had been taken over by evangelical Christians.”
•In 2005, in the midst of the same-sex marriage debate, Liberal cabinet minister Pierre Pettigrew mused: “I find that the separation of church and state is one of the most beautiful inventions of modern times.”
•During the 2006 election campaign, then Liberal prime minister Paul Martin suggested that he would amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to bar federal use of the notwithstanding clause. “Many evangelicals saw (Martin’s) promise (as) . . . characterizing those who supported a traditional view of marriage as a danger to ‘Canadian values’.”
•Stephane Dion, after becoming the Liberal leader, exhibited a “clumsy” attempt to reach out to religious voters. For example, in 2007, when asked by Christian talk show host Michael Coren why he was peppering his conversation with references to God, Dion replied, “I have been told that this is important to the people who watch this show.”
The study also reflects on evangelical interest in the Green Party and contains data, as well, that breaks out into Canadian regions, such as Quebec and the West.

Here is the link to Canadian Evangelical Voting Trends by Region, 1996–2008

I’ve thrown this up and have not checked methodology. I haven’t had time to check to see if author Don Hutchinson was with Focus on the Family. He is published by them, and many in the EFC do not hold FotF in regard or agree with their political agenda in Canada.
a) I don’t know if he was FotF, and I haven’t looked at the data yet. Rick Hiemstra is the director of the EFC branch which put out this paper. I haven’t looked at his prior history to see if he’s worked for FotF.
b) A quick search didn’t turn up past involvement with FotF for Rick Hiemstra, Director, Centre for Research on Canadian Evangelicalism.

To be fair to possibly agenda driven former employees of US religious right groups, a very quick glance at this paper shows the diversity of voting patterns among Canadian evangelicals and in bringing up the US stereotypes and partisanship without a full read, my lack of trust in and suspicion of the paper’s author FotF tactics would colour my response.

Brian Lilley has had an opportunity to read the paper and makes his observations here.
Some good observations (ie: voter intention, not practise) at Theomentary

Dennis Gruending: May 2008 The Religious Right & its Growing Influence on Canadian Public Life
The Canadian Election Study
Big City Lib Strikes Back

Update: I wrote Mr. Hutchinson and asked if he or Rick Hiemstra have worked for FotF. I’ve put his response in the comment section. Short answer, no. Used up my get out of jail free card with the EFC.

Published 5 months, 3 weeks ago 11 comments

11 Responses to “Canadian evangelical voting intention pattern survey”

RSS & Trackback

1 Cliff on Sep 20th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

An interesting context to this story; decrease in poverty and instability brought by expanded social safety net leads to a decrease in religiosity.
2 Glenn on Sep 20th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

I do know Don Hutchinson and, no, I do not believe he has or has even had any connections with FotF. I am a little surprised and disappointed that you are airing your doubts about his objectivity just because he has been published by them. You know me. Does the fact that I have been interviewed by 100 Huntley Street make me complicit with their acts? Of course not. People like Don and I are published and quoted by lots of people that we don’t always agree with 100%. Let’s be very careful here, okay? Please, let’s do the research before you hint of possible collusion. May I suggest that you call Don at his Ottawa office tomorrow morning or email him (hutchd@efc-canada.com) and simply ask? I note in a Januray 20 comment on Stackhouse’ blog you were asking the same question then. Why not simply ask him? This is a simply enough question to get an answer for. The EFC is easy to contact and Don, I am sure, would be glad to let you know.
3 Mark Byron on Sep 20th, 2009 at 6:01 pm

I did a quick Google for Rick Hiemstra; he’s a math teacher turned Wesleyan pastor with no discernible Focus ties.

A quick browse through the EFC site doesn’t show anything too ominous, unless you are allergic to certain parts of evangelical thought.
4 Bene D on Sep 21st, 2009 at 12:01 am

Hi Mark:

I have a visceral distrust and open dislike of Fotf, I admit it.
And when I don’t readers remind me, and I’m okay with reminders because it’s true.
I wish the organization would get out of this country and stay out.

I’ve written Fotf Canada when doing prior posts, and they don’t respond.
EFC might. When I was a reporter they were the go to people for thoughtful soundbites.

I respect attempts to put academic studies (ie: Riemer) out there where those of us who don’t have access to these books are able to gain some awareness.

And since BDBO does draw a fair bit of political blog traffic, I get I have a responsbility to temper my dislike of Fotf.

Hi Glenn:

I can’t call Mr. Hutchinson, I don’t have long distance. I can get up to speed on this latest study and write him. I went over to Dr. Stackhouse’s blog and that comment thread, there hasn’t been a satisfactory answer to my question and that’s my issue, not Mr. Hutchinsons.
I agree the EFC is a reputable organization, and take your rebuke with the grace it was given.
Since Fotf is ~~a member~~ an affiliate ~~in good standing the EFC have to represent them also~~.
I get that. I don’t like it, but I get that.

While I don’t think the EFC is going to muck about changing peoples voting patterns, I can’t say the same for some of their members.
I don’t care what people vote, I care that they vote armed with sound information.

Why release this study now, after a summer of election talk and a vote on non-confidence?

Point taken, my involvement with 100 Huntley or 700 Club does not mean compliance either, but in hindsight I wish I’d been wiser. It’s involvement I deeply regret, no matter how well intentioned.

This a voting pattern potential study, I can stick to the facts.
5 Mark Byron on Sep 21st, 2009 at 5:04 am

I was thinking not of FotF but some of the NAR-ish folks; they and the Southern Baptists (when they are being tribally Baptist) get your juices flowing as well. One of the founders of the EFC was a Pentecostal Youth for Christ worker who put them in Ottawa as a lobbying presence.

The other thing I had to remember when looking at the EFC history is that a Canadian Presbyterian is a conservative one, since the center-left bloc of Presbyterians merged in with the United Church, leaving the remainder PCA-level conservative.
6 buckets on Sep 21st, 2009 at 6:43 am

It strikes me that we need to separate the data from the interpretation, with its list of specific grievances, including Kinsella’s notorious Flintstones comment. Without getting into the right and wrongs of the episodes mentioned, is there any evidence that these events were noted in the Evangelical community? Some of them are pretty obscure, including the 2004 “push-poll”, which I had never heard of, and I follow politics pretty closely.

One could, of course, have polled the issue, if one were interested in finding out, especially since a poll was being conducted anyway. “Have you ever heard of Warren Kinsella?” would get, what?, a 10-20% affirmative. Ask the affirmatives what they’ve heard and you’ll get a tiny portion who remember Barney.

That this was not done leads me to wonder whether the poll was lacking in curiosity. Yes, it puts some numbers to something that any intelligent observer can see is happening, but doesn’t give us anything but glib rumination about why.

If one is going to consider the reasons for the shift, I think we have to include
• the role of gay rights and ssm;
• the influence of the American political climate (where the loudest evangelical voices are the most conservative);
• the importance of leadership (the Reform-Alliance-Conservative movement has had three evangelical leaders in a row, which can only help Evangelicals see it as a natural home).

Some of those issues can probably be polled, either with direct questions or reasonable proxies. I can’t imagine, however, that whoever set up this one could give us anything but boilerplate.
7 Bene D on Sep 21st, 2009 at 6:47 am

Simple Mark – bullies and bad behavior.
FotF, NARish folk, the SBC tribalists and the EC… single issue fish in a barrel.

I’m losing my touch.;^)

You are referring to Dr. Brian Stiller, you’re correct, he put the EFC in Ottawa, among other accomplishments.

The EFC needs to update it’s history page.
8 Bene D on Sep 21st, 2009 at 8:36 am

Hey Buckets:

“Lacking in curiousity…”

Yes, well said, and nothing new. I grabbed a coffee and re-read the data this morning.

I think Dennis Gruending’s points are being dismissed.
The question may be fair, but the tone isn’t.

“So why are contemporary scholars writing articles with titles such as “Pulpit & Politics: The Religious Right & its
Growing Influence on Canadian Public Life,”7 and “How Scary? Stephen Harper and the Evangelical Agenda”?8
Have the “minimal differences” between Canadians and Canadian Evangelicals changed since the mid-1990s? Do
Canadian Evangelicals form a right-leaning voting bloc?”

While I noticed the footnote effort being made to acknowledge evangelical voters (a la NEA) moral issue concerns are broader than the EC stream, the Kinsella comment is a very obscure insider one.

I could ask most of my Christian friends about Warren, and I’d get a ‘who?’

You raise good points, I’m still left wondering who this is written for and why it’s released now.

Any engaged person already knows we vote regionally, know there was a shift on the two social issues (ssm/abortion) and we know The Conservative Party used the two issues to their advantage.
We know there would be other party voter pick up.
We know a party in power is happy to see a split opposition vote.
I’m risking being glib…

The EFC falls over itself trying to get out the message evangelicals are diverse in their political response, evangelicals aren’t diverse because of the EFC.
Over at the ‘newsy’ site the EFC runs the survey promo says “What they found may surprise you.”
I shall have to run that one past friends who aren’t political wonks, but I suspect the response would be well, no.
My first thought (last night) was why the scolding toward The Liberal Party?

Your word glib fits better than scold.

“The Liberal Party of Canada chose to marginalize Evangelicals for short-term electoral gain, derailing its traditionally strong evangelical support. Other parties from across the political spectrum engaged Evangelicals differently, picked up passengers, and continued on.”

Chose. Hmm. Just like those principled voters are noticing The Conservative Party is currently doing.
Yes…uh huh…and…?
9 Bene D on Sep 21st, 2009 at 11:32 am

Glenn:

As per your suggestion I wrote Mr. Hutchinson and asked him.
Here is his response.

Hi BD.

As a practice, I don’t tend to communicate with people who don’t tell me who they are.

In this case, I will make an exception to assist you with your characterizations of Rick Hiemstra and myself. However, if you wish further insight into either of the issues raised in your email and blog (i.e. the importance for faith based organizations to be able to work with people of shared faith and practice OR the statistical and research methodologies used in preparing the piece on Evangelical voting trends) then I think it fair that you communicate, as any other journalist would, by sharing your name. I have neither desire nor intention to share that publicly but only for the purpose of our private exchanges on matters of interest to you on which I may be of assistance. As noted on your blog, we do make ourselves available to the media.

Focus on the Family Canada is an affiliate of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. You may find a list of affiliated ministries and congregations on our website here.

Neither Rick nor I are or have been employed by Focus on the Family.

Don
10 buckets on Sep 21st, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Your word glib fits better than scold.

Scold has it’s attractions here, since it implies that the exercise was rhetorical rather than scientific. But it makes me wonder whether it is so much a scold for the sinner as a homily for the parishioners. Less a message to the Liberals ( “you don’t respect us”) than a message to their flock (“the Liberals don’t respect you — and therefore you must not vote for them”).

It would also, I suppose, explain their reaction to your inquiries. Not impressed? So what? It’s not meant for you.
11 Bene Diction on Sep 21st, 2009 at 12:53 pm

I thought I said FotF was an affiliate, not a member.

Oh.
I said FotF was an EFC member. I was wrong. I’ve corrected that. Not every day I get corrected by a VP. Fixed.
For affiliates:

For further clarification, the desire to join The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the applicant’s “agreement with the objects and statement of faith of the EFC” (By Law 3.0.2) in the context of affiliation is generally understood to mean that affiliates and their leaders:

in their reputation and activities, are received well by other affiliates;

engage with one another with honesty and in a manner consistent with the biblical understanding of fellowship;

understand the diversity among evangelicals and are willing to participate in collaborative initiatives; are supportive of the public witness of the EFC; and,

they or their leadership’s activities do not detract from or otherwise undermine the ability of the EFC and its affiliates to fulfill the objects, mission, vision and ends of the EFC.

An affiliate or its leadership that engages in activity that is divisive among the EFC constituency or that brings the evangelical community into disrepute publicly or otherwise evidences that it is no longer in agreement with the requirements for affiliation with the EFC will have their affiliation with the EFC reviewed and their status may be suspended or terminated.

A pre-election whistle for EFC members.
That works.

We bloggers should be flattered Buckets. We are perceived as media.;^)